Some people believe that children should study world history at school, while others believe that they should study their national history. What is your opinion?

There is a continuous debate over the subjects that pupils should study during school-years, one of them being over world or national history. This essay will discuss the debate, and give a concluding view. The supporters of national history claim that, schoolchildren should first learn about their native country and its history. Knowing local history will make pupils to care more about their community and become a better citizens, since they create an ever-lasting bound with their ancestors while learning this history. They further strengthen this belief by pointing out that, if youngsters do not know the history of their country, those students will not be able to protect their motherland – proving its history- in social gatherings in the future. On the other hand, opponents of national history, support the idea of globalization and world-wide integration. They believe, the entire society would benefit from understanding the ups and downs of history and stop repeating the same mistakes. In addition, those who support knowing the world history, also points out that learning history would also make younger generation to form respect to everyone, in spite of their nationalities and beliefs. They even believe, well-taught world history could create peace in the world, given all the countries utilizing the translation of the same, correctly-written books. Lastly, it is also believed that world history widens the one’s horizon, since it presents an array of different traditions and cultures, throughout the course. Overall, it appears that even though knowing one’s native history would be beneficial to some extent, learning world history is more crucial to children as it might also play a vital role in the creation of peace-making and intelligence level of students.